I understand where you are coming from- but- I don't think anyone thinks that scientology is the only place where these kinds of things happen. We all know about the Catholic church's pedophilia scandals by now. But this is a board that deals specifically with scientology's abuses...

What is difficult for me is, I personally know of 3 separate cases of sexual abuse/violence towards women/children that were improperly handled by scientology. One case of impropriety helped bring about an individual's death (imo). If I alone know of 3 separate cases, I am sure there are many more than we realize. Yet I cannot divulge the personal stories of individuals I knew out of respect for their privacy. None of these are cases that are legally relevant or prosecutable, beyond establishing a pattern of behavior by scientology.

We need to get the word out that this specific kind of tragedy is being prosecuted in Australia, because hopefully, that will help give some of the victims the strength to come forward.

_________________“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” ― Hannah Arendt

Please, don't get me wrong. Like I said, what are you doing is good and I have no intention to divert your attention - or the board's- otherwise.

It was just my 2 cent on the matter - nothing more, nothing less.

Now, being back on topic - I bet 10 cents vs one million that the cult will try to scapegoat her. What bugs me is this: how come it has not shown earlier? Maybe, me being not American and never been "in", I did get the "diluted version" (No Celebrity Centres, no Sea Org) but still, how could a parent allow the exploitation of his or her own offsrping? As far as I know, there ARE biological imperatives, no?

What bugs me is this: how come it has not shown earlier? Maybe, me being not American and never been "in", I did get the "diluted version" (No Celebrity Centres, no Sea Org) but still, how could a parent allow the exploitation of his or her own offsrping? As far as I know, there ARE biological imperatives, no?

I think these are excellent questions, Sentinel. Even though the answers may not be adequate or even forthcoming, I think the issue deserves attention and more research.

Allowing the exploitation of one's own offspring obviously includes but is not limited to sexual exploitation. (Ref. Types of Child Abuse.) Scientology indoctrination for parents includes the unevaluatable idea of how restimulative or psychologically damaging parents are to the mental health and survival of their children. This pervades the indoctrination, starting with DMSMH, with horrific examples of deranged mothers, attempted abortions, prenatal engrams, etc. To compensate for this supposed liability of children having their parents in the vicinity, and probably for other reasons too, it seemed to me that parents on the inside tended to turn over much of their childrens' rearing, discipline, etc., to outsiders, such as private nannies, Scientology schools, wog schools, and org personnel. In the Sea Org, this happened by order, not by choice. Family bonds of Sea Org members were often ignored and in other ways undermined.

Just as parents are getting their own childhood authorities processed and "flattened," so too do their attitudes toward their own offspring change and flatten. This makes it easier, of course, to accept Hubbard's child psychology, which is essentially a denial of child psychology. According to Hubbard, kids are thetans in little bodies. The closer one conforms to this idea and conveys this in the treatment of children, it seems the easier it is to ignore and overlook opportunities for parental guidance and controls. Hubbard's ideas about proper treatment of children were excessively permissive, imo, and tended to encourage aggressive and bullying behaviors, and tended to minimize parental bonds and other potential authorities. This, of course, served Hubbard's closest personal needs and interests, because he surrounded himself with children bonded tightly to him.

Thanks, Caroline, for clearing the weird ideas about raising children ElRon had.

Also, scientology is (to my knowledge at least) the only belief-system that states that the age of the child is not that important. The body may be under age, the thetan is millions of years old and perfectly able to consent to sex with an adult. Every other culture and religion that I know of has some "age of consent" for sex. The opinions differ on what that age is, but a border between "old enough" and "to young" is, and has always been, set.

Scientology doesn't really care about this age of consent, since the thetan is old enough anyway. Most scientologists are not pedophiles and don't molest children because they don't want to, they don't feel attracted to them in that way. The part of the small group that would want to have sex with minors but doesn't do it, refrains from doing so out of fear for legal consequences and the damage to their social status in case of getting caught. It's not their religion that stops them, it's wog laws and moral standards.

The predatory minority that feels invincible or just doesn't care about consequences gets confirmed, through LRH's opinions, that there is nothing wrong with them, because children are just adult thetans in little bodies. That means they are "fair game"(pun intended) for sexual exploitation. The feeling of guilt, of having sinned against God, that a Catholic priest will have after molesting his altar-boy, is absent in the child-molesting scientologist.

Most people presume every normal parent, specially every mother, will try to protect her child from those that molest him/her.Unfortunately that is not always the case. Many women choose for their partner and the emotional and financial stability of their marriage over the safety of their children. This happens in every culture and religion. The child that tells the mother then gets punished for "trying to ruin her relationship" or "being selfish" or "being a slut that goes after her mother's man". So the victim gets victimized again, this time by the person that should protect her/him above all else.

In scientology this will happen even more often than elsewhere, because:*emotional ties between parents and children are systematically flattened by the tech,*the victim is supposed to have pulled the abuse in, *children are grown thetans in little bodies, and *the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics is what counts.

The last one means in this case that keeping your mouth shut as a mother of an abuse-victim will protect your family and your church, victimizing "only" your child.

Going to the police means that social services gets involved, nasty questions will be asked, your marriage will go sour, you won't be able to buy as many courses to progress along the bridge, your church will get negative publicity and won't be able to clear the planet anytime soon etcetera. If you don't want to play ball Jan Eastgate or a professional like her will drop by at your house and tell you the evil psychs will come to take your kid and submit it to even worse abuse and it will all be your fault because YOU WOULDN'T KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!The victim will basically be told the same; They'll take you away from home, your father will go to prison, your mother will hate you, the psychs will torture you and the Planet-Clearing will be delayed thanks to you, because YOU INSIST ON MAKING THESE CRAZY ALLEGATIONS!And what does a properly brainwashed clam do in such a case? Clam up. The greatest good....

I know, it's pathetic and enraging. But that's the way it goes.

_________________"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."Sir Karl Popper (1902 - 1994)

^ Yes, I think you're onto it, Sekh. There are also Hubbard's stable data that, "You can't hurt a thetan" (Control and the Mechanics of SCS), "the preclear has never done anything in this life that has aberrated him" (Wordclearing Series 27), and "You are totally responsible for the condition you are in." (Ethics Officer mantra.)

I'd say also that these ideas tend to make nothing of bad or cruel behavior and also displace the "cause" of the person's trauma or suffering in time, so that the victims get confused about the source of the victimization. Scientologists, of course, are by definition not victims, (Ref. OP here) so having been victimized is practically an indictment of having done the crime themselves. Scientologists will go into session and find or manufacture some "whole track" crime that matches what the perpetrator did to them in this life time. Now the victimizer in this lifetime gets away with the crime, and the victim gets stuck with a false memory. Nice trick.

Regarding Scientologists not being victims, they will, of course, be victims on command or as implicit command intention, if it serves Scientology's war purposes for them to be victims, e.g., Ken Hoden as victim in the Scientology v. Henson fair game campaign.

Carmen was describing Hubbard's "Overt-Motivator" sequence. [Definition: Overt-Motivator Sequence] "Pulling it in" means in Scientology to attract and experience a harmful act against oneself, as a consequence of having earlier committed a similar "overt" or crime to another.

So it's like a broken version of karmic justice? "It doesn't matter - it's always YOUR fault". I'm beginning to see the pattern here... not very far from certain types of spousal/familiar abuse. Just more organized.

So it's like a broken version of karmic justice? "It doesn't matter - it's always YOUR fault". I'm beginning to see the pattern here... not very far from certain types of spousal/familiar abuse. Just more organized.

Hubbard "differentiated" between karma and the O/M sequence like this:

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

Now, what does this all add up to? Well, it adds up to the fact that if man is basically good the only thing wrong with him is his imprisonment in evil. But the evil is false. This is quite interesting. If the evil is false, what would happen if you set him free? He becomes good.

Ah, then what witchcraft has been worked here? We tell a fellow he is evil, and we convince him one way or the other that he shouldn’t attack, because other things are good and he is evil.

And we just have another civilization mechanism.

And one of the ways of phrasing it is that everything done by you will be revisited upon you. That’s karma.

“You will pay for everything you have ever done”: that’s karma. And a lot of people get the overt-motivator sequence mixed up with karma. They are not the same thing.

The overt-motivator sequence means that you have to lay yourself open to feeling bad about something—to a motivator—with an overt. That’s true, too. But do you know how it’s true? It says there’s an area you mustn’t attack. And that becomes the keynote and the whole swan song of a people: There are things you mustn’t attack.

I went back and looked up some of the records on the track -- I hate to bring up things like this, because it's para-Scientological -- but I found out that there was a coordination between being able to tolerate space and invisible particles, and being knocked over easily by ray guns. Very scientific research.

In other words, a person has to be allergic to something before it can hurt him. He has to have developed certain mental attitudes toward a thing before it can harm him. And I don't care whether you apply that to the body or the psyche or anything else.

See, he has to have certain attitudes toward something before it can behave toward him in a certain way.

Give you an idea, somebody sailed in here one day; he was a fellow who had been through an HCA course, and he hadn't had much auditing. He'd done quite a bit of auditing in a rather unbalanced condition himself at the beginning. He had then done much more auditing than he had audited, and he'd unbalanced himself rather thoroughly. And he'd gotten into a criminal valence. He was thinking of himself as a criminal. Stepped into Union Station down here in Washington and, by golly, the cops picked him up and questioned him for murder till two o'clock in the morning. And he had an auditing session to run this out right afterwards, and this was the only thing he'd run -- of course, you could say he was in a state of shock -- but he all of a sudden cognited that he'd been in this for about a month.

A checkover of this particular individual showed that he'd been in contact with and trouble with the police for a very long period of time -- most of his life. The auditor audited this, and up till now the person has not been actively arrested. He is simply engaging in somewhat antisocial activities. But it has no connection with the police.

Somebody cleaned police out of this case without cleaning the police up. Got the idea? In other words, we altered his consideration, his resistance to, his allergy concerning cops. Cops leave him alone.

Now this, you could say, was magic. But it's not magic when you understand that a person is part, by agreement, of all dynamics. You actually have to influence some other dynamic to have it influence the first dynamic. See, you have to actually influence the actions which are undertaken against you. You really do. And it's not very magical.

The fellow who goes around worrying about getting drowned usually gets drowned. If only on the basis that when he sees water, or a place where he could drown, he gets nervous. This makes him less secure in the handling of boats, ropes, walking in gangways, bridges. See? So he gets nervous, and at the right moment he slips and he gets drowned.

People create their fates. Somebody who believes that one has accumulated an enormous amount of karma up and down the track, and so on, is believing that nobody creates his fates.

Now all you have to do with somebody who's worried about karma is get him to create a few fates, and his karma has a tendency to go poof! The way to solve karma is just to have somebody create some fates and consequences.

So according to Hubbard, Carmen's "whole track allergy" to sex offenders caused her to pull one in, and none of this flap would be happening if someone had just cared enough to give her a standard 2D sec check.

The irony of course is that the whole operation of auditing and everything else in Scientology is to get Scientologists to not attack the very entities and people they should be attacking, i.e., telling the truth about, for their own health and good karma.

Here is Hubbard's definitive statement about criticism and the application of his tech on the overt-motivator sequence.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

PERMITTED AUDITOR STATEMENTS

There are, however, two areas where the auditor must make a statement to the pc and assume the initiative.

These are in the OVERT—MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE and in the ARC BREAK.

A

When the pc is critical of the auditor, the organization or any of many things in life, this is always a symptom of overts priorly committed by the pc.

The pc is looking for motivators. These criticisms are simply justifications and nothing more.

This is a sweeping fully embracive statement—and a true one. There are no criticisms in the absence of overts committed earlier by the pc.

It is quite permissible for the auditor to start looking for the overt, providing the auditor finds it and gets it stated by the pc and therefore relieved.

But even here the auditor only states there is an overt. The auditor NEVER says what the overt is for that’s evaluation.

You will be amazed at what the pc considered was the overt. It is almost never what we would think it should be.

But also, an auditor whose pc is critical of him or her in session who does not say, “It sounds like you have an overt there. Let’s find it,” is being neglectful of his job.

The real test of a professional auditor, the test that separates the unskilled from the skilled is: CAN YOU GET AN OVERT OFF THE PC’S CASE WITHOUT ARC BREAKING THE PC AND YET GET IT OFF. [Definition: ARC Break]

The nice balance between demanding the pc get off an overt and getting it off and demanding the pc get off an overt and failing to get it off but ARC Breaking the pc is the border line between the unskilled and the professional.

If you demand it and don’t do it you’ll ARC Break the pc thoroughly. If you fail to demand it for fear of an ARC Break you’ll have a lowered graph on the pc. The pro demands the overt be gotten off only when necessary and plows on until it’s gotten off and the pc brightens up like a lighthouse. The amateur soul-searches himself and struggles and fails in numerous ways—by demanding the wrong overt, by accepting a critical comment as an overt, by not asking at all for fear of an ARC Break, by believing the pc’s criticism is deserved—all sorts of ways. And the amateur lowers the pc’s graph.

Demanding an overt is not confined to just running O/W [Definition: Overt; Definition: Withhold] or some similar process.

It’s a backbone auditing tool that is used when it has to be used. And not used when it doesn’t have to be.

The auditor must have understood the whole of the overt-motivator theory to use this intelligently.